William Faulk wrote: > Oh, that's surprising to me. > > The LDAP spec seems to indicate that the only possible argument for a delete operation is a DN, and, while I still can't reproduce the problem with unimportant entries, access logs on replicas where deletes are being replicated to seem to imply that the remote server is just requesting a normal delete operation specifying the DN, and the access logs don't seem to show any sort of search to determine the DN from the nsuniqueid (or anything else). > > So, and I'm sorry to say this, but: Are you sure? Keep in mind that I'm running an old version of 389-ds: v1.3.11, I think. Maybe the replication protocol is handled in such a way that access logs are showing an action that is ultimately what's happening, even if it's not exactly how the request was actually made? > > (I genuinely do appreciate the input.) Is it possible to share the entries, redacted is fine? The two on the oddball server and the one across the others? What Pierre is saying is that if you you want to make sure that the nsuniqueid in the conflict entry is different from the "right" entries on the other servers, otherwise you will delete them all. rob -- _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
